ML20004F013
| ML20004F013 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1981 |
| From: | Blum S, Jeffrey Riley CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106160394 | |
| Download: ML20004F013 (7) | |
Text
5 k
ts p,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUL ~ ~ "0MMISSION 2
JUN 1219m o
fg m -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC e
.: MiD. LIC;r. ING APPEAL BOAR In the Matter of d
.,h 0
V '
s t JUh 1$ 1981 gehet Nos. 50-369-OL DUKE POWER COMPANY
- Mar'** O 50-370-OL (William B. McGuire Nuclea
)
7 37 Station, Units 1 and 2) fa CESG'S EXCEPTION IAL DECISION The ASLB in the.nstant matter issued a Supplemental Initial Decision, May 26, 1981 (served May 27, 1981) which lifted the stayed Initial Decision of April 18, 1979.
The ID had been stayed pending the issuance of an SER supplement relating to generic matters.
The stay was maintained after the issuance of the SER supplement on May 23, 1980 as a result of CESG's successful petition to reopen the hear'ing in regard to TMI related hydrogen generation and combustion issues by a Memorandum and Order of November 25,1980' (ID til & 2).
CESG hereby takes exceptions to both the ID and the SID.
This filing accords with the ALAB Order, June 21, 1979, that the, time for exceptions "will not commence to run until tlie further order is issued".
1.
The ASLB erred in rejecting the testimony of J. L. Riley as evidence, in whole and in part, and in its decision that Riley w.as no.t. qualified to testify.as an expert. See finding 24. (Tr.
l 3967-69) 2.
The ASLB erred in neglecting the affidavit of J. L. Riley referred to as Exhibit 63 and in its decision that the affidavit was not responsive to the Staff's affidavit concerning the pyrol-See ysis of polyurethane foam and other matters before the Board.
i findings 6 and 54 (Tr. 5252)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS
$p j 819616s304 POOR QUAUTY PAGES l
. 3 The ASLB erred in rejecting exhibits offered by CESG as evidence for all purposes including Exhibits h2-56, 58, 59, 62 l
and Staff M.
Note that CESG's Exhibit 59 and Staff's Exhibit M were not admitted for the truth of the matter contained therein.
(Tr. 4654, h663) l 4
The ASLB erred in refusing to grant a subpoena for Louis Charles Barbe on application of CE'SG.
(Tr. 3kh6-8, 3480-1) 5 The ASLB erred in refusing to grant subpoenas for witnesses to substantiate and allow the introduction of documents as followws:
Staff Exhibit M, H. W. Hubbard, R. P. Hammond, or S. M. Zivi; CESG Exhibit 59, W. T. Pratt; CESG Exhibit 62, John Doe, an NRC staff person.
(Tr. 4879-82, 4984-5021) 6.
The ASLB erred in not allowing evidence to be taken on
. Contentions 3 and 4, in that evidence as to the dire consequences of a breach of containment must be entered into the balance as a measuie of ejsk'should an unlikely accident occur.
See finding 58 (3). (Tr. 5233, 5247) 7.
The ASLB erred in not allowing Contention 5 which stated that an environmental impach, statement for the most severe class of accidents was required.
(CESG's Memorandum of Jan. 21, 1981; K3LB's Memorandum and Order,' February 17, 1981; CESG's request for certification to the Commission, March 2, 1981; ASLB's Memorandum and Order denying certification, April 21, 1981) 8.
The ASLB erred in not allowing Contention 6 which stated that the McGuire emergency plan be revised to inc~
a response for Charlotte, N. C. in the event of a Class 9 accident.
.(cf.
- 7. foregoing for references.)
. 9.
The Board erred in accepting Applicant's theory that it was necessary for CESG to demonstrate a sp'ecific "crediblo" l
accident. _ (Tr.
5236, 5248-9) l 10.
The ASLB erred in giving inadequate consideration to the lessons learned from the TMI-2 experience, j
11.
The ASLB erred in not keeping the record open to determine 1
why the igniter system failed in tests at Livermore.
(Tr. 5227-8; R. L. Tedesco, Memorandum for the ASLB, May 19, 1981, 3 enclosures) 1 12.
The ASLB erred in not keeping the record open until studies on in-containment detonation had been made.
(Tr.
5229; R. A. Birkel, Summary of Meeting Held on March 20, 1981 enclosing Memorandum, W. Butler to L. Rubenstein, April 7, 1981, Meeting with Dr. J. Lee Re: H2. Combustion)
The ASLB erred in not cdnsidering CESG Exhibits 61 a'nd 62 13 as evidence in regard to accident credibility.
(Tr. k879-82)
- 14..The ASLB erred in not considering CESG Exhibit 59 for m-the truth of the matter contained therein regarding accident credibility.
(Tr. 4654, 4663) 15 The ASLB erred in that its findings are not based on the record and its conclusions are not based on findings that accuratelf" reflect the recorii and scientific truth.
(CESP Findings 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, h3, 44, h5, 47, h8, 49, 50, and 51) 16.
The ASLB erred in that the entire procedure was so rushed l
that the Board was unable to consider dangerous gaps in our know-ledge and to utilize ongoing research that changed the saf,ety l
equation as the Board was sitting.
The Staff was unable to inform
e
_k_
Intervenor as to the state of knowledge and did not provide witnesses to authenticate reports it has contracted for.
The Intervenor was unable,to secure and to analyze information produced in the ongoing research in relation to the Sequoyah licensee and by other NRC consultants.
(Tr.
4655-63, 3860) 17 The AELB erred in not requiring a witness who could be i
examined as to the truth of Exhibit 59.
(Tr. 3860-1) 18.
The ASLB erred in rejecting CESG's testimony in regard to the need for power.
(ID 4-18-79 p. 35)
I 19.
The ASLB erred in finding that CESG did not include the business cycle as a factor in electrical demand.
(ID
- p. 35) i 20..
The ASLB erred in finding that cost / capacity considerations were such that nuclear steam generation at McGuire would be less costly than fossil steam generation.
(ID p. 39) i 21.
The ASLB erred in finding that bringing the McGuire units on line will result in a total overall lowering of production l
cost per unit of energy generated for Applicant's service area".
~
(ID p. kk) 22.
The ASLB erred in finding that, in the case of McGuire, "it is appropriate in considering the relative economics of nuclear,vs_. coal to compare costs of construction and operation of the fossil plant only with the costs of operating the sub-stantially complete nuclear plant.
(ID p. k$)
23 The ASLB' erred in not finding that the construction of smaller fossil units would not result in a significantly lowered required reserve margin.
(ID p. h7) 24 The ASLB erred in finding the increases in construction costs reaso'na'bie'in comparison to alternatives, and that the
~
t 5-
' cost-benefit comparison remains favorable compared'to the finding made for the construction permit.
(ID p. 48) 25 The ASLB errg4 in considering "the small costs of electric production" and " operating costs" in the cost-benefit analysis rather than the rates which the public must pay.
(ID p. 48) 26.
The ASLB erred in disregarding the capital costs of McGuire in finding that nuclear generation would be ir.mr.ine from the tendency for prices of equivalent energy sources to equalize.
(ID p. 52) 27.
The ASLB erred in finding McGuire generation necessary
.... to retain a reasonable level of reserves in the 1980's.
(ID p. 55) 28.. The ASLB erred in concluding that the "no plant" alterna-tive did not merit consideration at the time of the ID on the basis
}thatM,cGuirewasnearlycompleted.
(ID p. 56)
~
Respectfully submitted,
/g
/
l M w
s.
Shelley Blup 1402 Vickg'r's Avenue Durham, N.C.
27707 (919) 493-2238 i
id'
-.s
/
Jesse L. Riley g
~
854 Henley Place Charlotte, N.C.
28207
( 7 011) 375-4342 June 8, 1981 9,,
w
--y.
-,-,..--9.
._y
,p,,
e.
Uii!TED STATES OF AMERICA iiUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO'i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AfC LICEtiSItiG APPEAL SCARO In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE PCWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-369 0~
)
50-370 (William 3. McGuire Nuclear
)
Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE I hereby affirm that copies of "CESG's Exceptions to Initial Decision", dated June 8, 1981, have been served on the same date by deposit in the U. S. Mail on the following:
~
Robert M.
Lazo, Esq.
Edward G.
Ketchen, Esq.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and Counsel for NRC Regulatory Licensing Board Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Commission Legal Director Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
2D555 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William L. Porter, Esq.
U.S., Nuclear Regulatory Associate General Counsel Commission Duk'e Power Comoany Washington, D.C.
20555 Post Office sok 2'173 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 o
Dr. Richard P. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing board l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv
~
Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
J. Michael McCarrv, I'l l, Esq.
Chase R.
S te "-he n s Dcbevoise and Liberman e[f][andService
-u j
1200 0cventeenth Street, N.W.
,asn,ington, D.C.
20036 C,., ice c:- the Secretary 1
t.
U.S. Nuclear RegulatorO Chairman, atomic Safety Commission and Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20555 i
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing cn, D.C.
20555 F270E Eddi0 EUOX 600 zast Crsde St.
Charlotte, NC 20202 j
Dr. John carry-1200 Blythe-Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 20207 a-
,,y y
w w,, -, - -
..m-y
+
w-
--.#--g
,r
~.
J 6
Diane 3. Cohn, Esq.
Snell-rf Elum, cq.
William.3.-Schultz, Esq.
1c02 Vickers Ave.
Public Citizen Litigation Group Durham i
~ suite 700 N.C.
27707 i
2000 P Street, N.W-l Washington, D.C.
20036 e
j i
f
~
~7
- a l
JfsseL.Rileyfor 'r;SG I
i i
1 1
i 1
i P
l t
I, -
r l
f l
f I
l l
i l.
---eq,m,.,,.w g,p
,w,._,.-,,esi
.e+,,
- -.. - -, +.-,,-w.+,-,,-y,,m,--,,,,.,
-.m w.q, w
,,i.-.m ww w-,.
,,%,-3,.,wew,w.,w-w.- s
,,..y,=,-ge,w-,gw-e me+,,-w - w,erw,